Wisniewski v. Diocese of Belleville
943 N.E.2d 43
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Wisniewski alleges decades-long sexual abuse by a Diocese priest, Kownacki, from 1973 to 1978, and claims the Diocese is liable for negligent and fraudulent concealment-based theories.
- The Diocese knew of Kownacki’s prior abuse involving Gina Parks (1973) and other allegations (1982 memo) but kept information from Wisniewski and parishioners, and reassigned Kownacki rather than discipline him.
- Kownacki was appointed to St. Theresa’s in Salem (1973) despite awareness of previous abuse; Wisniewski served as altar boy and developed trust in the Diocese and its priests.
- A confidential 1982 memo and other internal communications revealed multiple prior abuse incidents, yet the Diocese did not disclose these to the public or to oversight bodies at the time.
- Kownacki was removed from active ministry only in 1995 after investigative review; Wisniewski’s later discovery of the abuse occurred in 2002, prompting the lawsuit.
- Wisniewski suffered PTSD and major depressive disorder, with symptoms intensifying after 2002 media coverage of priest abuse, leading to his filing of suit on October 24, 2002.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does fraudulent concealment toll the statute of repose? | Wisniewski proved Diocese concealed facts through its officers. | Fraudulent concealment did not toll repose as a matter of law. | Jury issues on concealment tolling upheld; repose tolling facts for trial. |
| Did fraudulent concealment toll the statute of limitations under discovery rules? | Knowledge delay due to Diocese concealment prevented discovery until 2002. | Discovery rule does not toll without timely notice. | Jury properly decided discovery-tolling; limitations tolling sustained. |
| Was a duty or special relationship with Wisniewski established to support fraudulent concealment? | Diocese held trust over parishioners; silence breached duty. | No fiduciary duty with parishioners as a matter of law. | Jury could find a special relationship; duty found for concealment. |
| Was the trial court proper in denying a Rule 215 mental-examination motion? | Evaluation of Wisniewski’s mental state is relevant to damages and causation. | Motion was untimely and information was insufficient. | Court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Did evidentiary rulings on Kopacz notes require reversal? | Notes were probative of psychological injury and causation. | Notes referenced settlement discussions and were inadmissible. | Rulings affirmed; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 2006) (statute of repose tolling for fraudulent concealment explained)
- Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill. 2d 353 (Ill. 1995) (discovery rule generally; when it activates)
- Chicago Park District v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill. 2d 555 (Ill. 1980) (fiduciary Silence can constitute fraudulent concealment; special relationship concepts)
- Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603 (Ill. 2000) (pre-1994 law on discovery and injury; asbestos-like contrasts)
- Parks v. Kownacki, 193 Ill. 2d 164 (Ill. 2000) (inquiry notice and timing against clergy abuse context)
- Dausch v. Rykse, 52 F.3d 1425 (7th Cir. 1994) (limitations and fiduciary-like duties in clergy context)
- Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Dallas, 234 Ill. 2d 393 (Ill. 2009) (state constitution due-process limits on reviving time-barred claims)